Implications of ChatGPT in Public Health Dentistry: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An artificial intelligence (AI) program called ChatGPT that generates text in response to typed commands has proven to be highly popular, as evidenced by the fact that OpenAI makes it available online. The goal of the present investigation was to investigate ChatGPT's potential applications as an outstanding instance of large language models (LLMs) in the fields of public dental health schooling, writing for academic use, research in public dental health, and clinical practice in public dental health based on the available data. Importantly, the goals of the current review included locating any drawbacks and issues that might be connected to using ChatGPT in the previously mentioned contexts in healthcare settings. Using search phrases including chatGPT, implications, artificial intelligence (AI), public health dentistry, public health, practice in public health dentistry, education in public health dentistry, academic writing in public health dentistry, etc., a thorough search was carried out on the Pubmed database, the Embase database, the Ovid database, the Global Health database, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science. The dates of publication were not restricted. Systematic searches were carried out for all publications according to inclusion and exclusion criteria between March 31, 2018, and March 31, 2023. Eighty-four papers were obtained through a literature search using search terms. Sixteen similar and duplicate papers were excluded and 68 distinct articles were initially selected. Thirty-three articles were excluded after reviewing abstracts and titles. Thirty-five papers were selected, for which full text was managed. Four extra papers were found manually from references. Thirty-nine articles with full texts were eligible for the study. Eighteen inadequate articles are excluded from the final 21 studies that were finally selected for systemic review. According to previously published studies, ChatGPT has demonstrated its effectiveness in helping scholars with the authoring of scientific research and dental studies. If the right structures are created, ChatGPT can offer suitable responses and more time to concentrate on the phase of experimentation for scientists. Risks include prejudice in the training data, undervaluing human skills, the possibility of fraud in science, as well as legal and reproducibility concerns. It was concluded that practice considering ChatGPT's potential significance, the research's uniqueness, and the premise-the activity of the human brain-remains. While there is no question about the superiority of incorporating ChatGPT into the practice of public health dentistry, it does not, in any way, take the place of a dentist since clinical practice involves more than just making diagnoses; it also involves relating to clinical findings and providing individualized patient care. Even though AI can be useful in a number of ways, a dentist must ultimately make the decision because dentistry is a field that involves several disciplines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".